On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 05:26:10 UTC, Nicholas Smith wrote:
Thanks Jonathon, these are the kinds of warnings I was looking
for.
There are _no_ guarantees of atomicity with shared. Yes, on
some
architectures, writing a word size might be atomic, but the
language
guarantees no such thing.
On Monday, October 07, 2013 07:26:02 Nicholas Smith wrote:
> Thanks Jonathon, these are the kinds of warnings I was looking
> for.
>
> > There are _no_ guarantees of atomicity with shared. Yes, on some
> > architectures, writing a word size might be atomic, but the
> > language
> > guarantees no s
Thanks Jonathon, these are the kinds of warnings I was looking
for.
There are _no_ guarantees of atomicity with shared. Yes, on some
architectures, writing a word size might be atomic, but the
language
guarantees no such thing.
I was looking narrowly at x86, which I *think* such a statement
On Thursday, October 03, 2013 08:34:00 Nicholas Smith wrote:
> * Reads and writes to shared variables with a size equal to or
> less than the word size of the machine are atomic and are visible
> to all other threads immediately.
There are _no_ guarantees of atomicity with shared. Yes, on some
ar
So I suppose shared is confusing to everyone else, too. :)
I'll just wing it and fill my program with rare but devastating
bugs ;)
Hi there,
I have a few questions about what is safe to assume when writing
concurrent code in D with data sharing (as opposed to message
passing).
After doing a fair amount of reading, I'm still slightly hazy
about what shared does and doesn't guarantee. Here is the only
assumption I unders
